Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C (Karnataka) vs Narayanan, Murali and K. Rajamani

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the owners of the offending vehicle are in appeal. Respondents are the legal heirs being the father, brother and sister of one Udayan who was Cleaner in a mini lorry which collided with the bus owned by the appellant Corporation and lost his life. The Tribunal under the impugned award has awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,78,000/- as compensation to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and cost. Even though notice of this appeal was served on the respondents none of them have turned up before this court for resisting this appeal. In the memorandum of appeal various grounds are raised assailing the award of the Tribunal. Sri. Sheji P.Abraham would at the very outset submit that the present claim which is based u/s 163A is unsustainable in view of the asserted position of the respondents that the deceased Udayam was drawing an average of Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per mensem out of his employment in the mini lorry. Reliance was placed in this regard by Mr. Sheji P.Abraham on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2004(2) KLT 395 SC. It was argued that the above decision lays down clearly that Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act can apply only to those whose income up to Rs. 40000/- per annum and that other claims are to be required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. Mr. Sheji P. Abraham accordingly requested that the impugned award passed in an application u/s 163A is to be set aside as the application itself was not maintainable in law. It was also submitted by Mr. Sheji P.Abraham that it had come out in evidence that the driver of the mini lorry in which Sri.Udayan was Cleaner did not have a valid driving licence. This aspect of the matter, according to Mr. Sheji P.Abraham would show that there was negligence on the part of the above driver who has at least contributed to the accident. The above submissions of Mr. Sheji P. Abraham are not resisted at the Bar.We have considered the submissions. We have also gone through the ratio of the decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni''s case. We find force in the submission of Mr. Sheji P.Abraham that the application would not have been maintained u/s 163A as on the averments in the original petition itself, the deceased Udayan was drawing an annual income exceeding Rs. 40000/- . We are therefore inclined to interfere with the impugned award. At the same time, we feel that the Tribunal should consider O.P. as one u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows:

The impugned award is set aside. O.P.(M.V) No. 1718 of 2001 is remanded to the MACT, Alapuzha. The MACT, Alapuzha is directed to pass a revised award in the O.P. after enquiring into the O.P. treating the same to be u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the claimant respondents seek impleadment of the owner and driver of the mini lorry which was also involved in the accident, the application if any to be filed by them should be specifically considered by the Tribunal. Revised award will be passed after affording opportunity to all parties including the additional parties if any impleaded to adduce whatever evidence they want to for substantiating their claims and contentions. The learned Tribunal will pass revised award pursuant to this judgment early and at any rate, within four months of receiving copy of this judgment.